Standardised Test Bowling Averages Across Time

Im bored so I though I would look to standardise bowling Test bowling averages of different players from any time period. This would hopefully make comparisons easier, though never exact.

Im sure it will have been done before but it is an interesting exercise.

Im sure there may be points made about the methodology but it is the fairest way I can see possible.

Methodology
Break the history of Test cricket into smaller groups and work out the 'global' Test bowling average for that period.

19th C- 22.38 Global bowling average

Pre WW1- 26.15 Global bowling average

Inter War Years- 33.33 Global bowling average

1945-75- 31.80 Global bowling average

75-90- 32.56 Global bowling average

1990s- 31.87 Global bowling average

2000s- 34.38 Global bowling average

It is important to see the differences as each time period will have had different conditions that may have favoured the batsman or the bowler and affected the balance between the two. eg uncovered tracks, bat technology, LBW laws etc

One of the figures needs to be chosen as the base number. I chose the 1990s as any one would do but it is simply the period I watched the most cricket in.

So the 1990s number of 31.87 is the base number of 1. Then this number of 31.87 is divided by all the other 'global averages' to give the weighting for that period of time.

19th C- 1.42 Weighting

Pre WW1- 1.22 Weighting

Inter War Years- 0.96 Weighting

1945-75- 1 Weighting

75-90- 0.98 Weighting

1990s- 1 Weighting

2000s- 0.93 Weighting

Now averages from those periods would be multiplied by the weighting and a new and more standardised average would be the result.

However, to further ensure that the numbers are more comparable and that we are comparing apples with apples, only the wickets taken in games won or lost will be used in the new average.

This is to get a stable base where all games are played in an environment where 20 wickets are capable of being taken and doesnt penalise players who played on dead tracks or favour players that spent most of their times on bowling heavens (eg Lohmann never played in a drawn test match).

So the stats from non-drawn tests are given their weightings and the new standardised averaged are the product.

Many players have played across different periods so the games they played are weighted differently.

Results

Malcolm Marshall
Actual Test Av= 20.94Standardised Test Av= 17.78

41 games in 75-90 that were either won or lost taking 238 wickets @ 17.24
11 games in 1990s that were either won or lost taking 43 wickets @ 21.09

so
((41/52)*0.98*17.24) + ((11/52)*1*21.09) = 17.78

Fred Trueman
Actual Test Av= 21.57Standardised Test Av= 20.26

45 games in 45-75 that were either won or lost taking 218 wickets @ 20.26

so
20.26*1 = 20.26

Syd Barnes
Actual Test Av= 16.43Standardised Test Av= 19.58

In Pre-WWI he took 165 wickets in games either won or lost @ 16.05

so
16.05*1.22 = 19.58

Murali
Actual Test Av= 21.73Standardised Test Av= 19.79

28 games in 1990s that were either won or lost taking 161 wickets @ 24.08
50 games in 2000s that were either won or lost taking 375 wickets @ 18.7

TBH, I'd prefer it if you did it (regarding games in England, in any case) into 19th-century, 1900-1930, 1930-1970 and 1970-current day.

In Australia it'd be different - if Sean could remind me again when pitches started being covered over there?

EDIT: having just read the entire post, my head is spinning, TBH.

It's hardly complicated IMO. He has simply taken the global bowling averages (that is, the average of all test bowling) of each period and then tried to standardise them by converting that global average to the same number. Once that was done, he had different weightings for each year.

For example, a bowler who has bowled exclusively since 2000 - say, Stuart Clark - would have his bowling average multiplied by 0.93 to get his standardised average, as the bowling averages of the base period (the 1990s) were 0.93 times the size of the averages in Clark's period. Someone who bowled exclusively in the 19th century would have their average multipled by 1.42 because the global bowling average in that period was 1.42 times bigger than the base period.

It gets a little more complicated for players who bowled across two periods - but I'm sure you can see how he figured that.

Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker

People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.

Originally Posted by GIMH

Freddie is the greatest cricketer ever so the fact these comparisons are being made means three things:

It's hardly complicated IMO. He has simply taken the global bowling averages (that is, the average of all test bowling) of each period and then tried to standardise them by converting that global average to the same number. Once that was done, he had different weightings for each year.

For example, a bowler who has bowled exclusively since 2000 - say, Stuart Clark - would have his bowling average multiplied by 0.93 to get his standardised average, as the bowling averages of the base period (the 1990s) were 0.93 times the size of the averages in Clark's period. Someone who bowled exclusively in the 19th century would have their average multipled by 1.42 because the global bowling average in that period was 1.42 times bigger than the base period.

It gets a little more complicated for players who bowled across two periods - but I'm sure you can see how he figured that.

I'm sure I could work it easily having read Kev's post, say, 10 times.

That's normally how long it takes me to take-up any mathematical formula these days.